Youseline Romain v. South County Mental Health Center, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 25-81626-CIV-CANNON/McCabe YOUSELINE ROMAIN, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., Defendant. _________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the following two Reports and Recommendations, both issued by Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe: Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion for Entitlement to Prevailing Party Attorney Fees, issued on March 23, 2026 [ECF No. 18], and Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, issued on March 23, 2026 [ECF No. 19] (together, the “Reports”). Magistrate Judge McCabe recommends that the Motion for Fees be denied [ECF No. 18] and that the Motion to Dismiss be granted [ECF No. 19].

Objections to these Reports were due on April 6, 2026 [see ECF No. 18 p. 7; ECF No. 19 p. 12]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Magistrate Judge Rule 4(a)–(b).

To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court CASE NO. 25-81626-CIV-CANNON/McCabe reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’ report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784.

Following appropriate review, the Court finds the Reports to be very well reasoned and correct. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Reports [ECF Nos. 18-19], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Reports and Recommendations [ECF Nos. 18-19] are ACCEPTED.

2. Defendant’s Motion for Fees [ECF No. 9] is DENIED.

3. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED.

4. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

5. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 8th day of April 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record